If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If someone is going to go on a shooting spree they will do it, regardless of gun laws. There are also knives, box cutters, Xactos, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly, Cindy. It's the idiots behind the guns that do the most damage - not the guns, themselves if people are taught to use them correctly. Unfortunately, in my head, I can hear people yelling, "We need stricter gun laws!" That won't do a bit of good!! What happened in the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in history @ Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas?? Not a damn thing - just more blabbering about gun control but nobody in congress nor the POTUS did anything about it. (Don't get me started on Trump.....I don't like him and never have and I don't see that changing even if he is our President).

Sadly, this reminds me of Columbine..... My condolences to the innocent lives that have been taken......

"Dance like no one is watching. Sing like no one is listening. Love like you've never been hurt and live like it's Heaven on Earth" - Mark Twain

Yeah people going on and on about gun control, I tell them to look up Andrew Kehoe. Oh and The Shooter is named Nicholas De Jesus Cruz

He was a former student who was kicked out, he was not allowed to be on campus with a back pack, at all. I have heard reports he was sitting in the classroom where it started and he just got got up and started shooting, I have heard that he walked in and started shooting...

"My Darling Girl ,when are you going to realize that being normal is not necessarily a virtue? It rather denotes a lack of courage." ~Aunt Frances~ #METOO grandpa Jan 8,1927-March 9, 2006 Grandma Nov 6, 1926-June 28, 2018. Forever loved and missed always in my heart.

What?
Didn't you just say that Americans were clueless?
Murder is illegal - the lawless still do it; the law abiding don't.
Making the gun illegal will only keep the law abiding from owning it; and they aren't going to be doing anything wrong with it in the first place.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

What?
Didn't you just say that Americans were clueless?
Murder is illegal - the lawless still do it; the law abiding don't.
Making the gun illegal will only keep the law abiding from owning it; and they aren't going to be doing anything wrong with it in the first place.

Exactly. We have a saying in the South "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

They need to lock school doors, install cameras on each door, and install either a buzzer entry system, or a card key. Or call ahead for entry. They need a shit list with pictures in front of the person in the office on door duty.

Legally, and responsibly owning a gun for home protection or hunting is one thing, but who in the hell hunts with an AR-15? Wouldn’t that be cheating?

Maybe a government buyback on legally owned assault rifles. Not a $10 gift card to a department store, but more like $500, and send the rifles back to our military (where they belong) and make the sale of them illegal. If there is a threat to confiscate or prosecute, folks may freak out and sell them on the street to a) get money in their pocket, b) get rid of the rifle fast before cops get it. If they have a buyback program, people who insist on hoarding their rifles now may think otherwise when in desperate need for cash when life happens...

Last edited by Squishy; 02-14-2018 at 09:16 PM.
Reason: furthermore...

They need to lock school doors, install cameras on each door, and install either a buzzer entry system, or a card key. Or call ahead for entry. They need a shit list with pictures in front of the person in the office on door duty.

Legally, and responsibly owning a gun for home protection or hunting is one thing, but who in the hell hunts with an AR-15? Wouldn’t that be cheating?

Maybe a government buyback on legally owned assault rifles. Not a $10 gift card to a department store, but more like $500, and send the rifles back to our military (where they belong) and make the sale of them illegal. If there is a threat to confiscate or prosecute, folks may freak out and sell them on the street to a) get money in their pocket, b) get rid of the rifle fast before cops get it. If they have a buyback program, people who insist on hoarding their rifles now may think otherwise when in desperate need for cash when life happens...

The AR-15 is not a "military" weapon - it's the civilian version of a military weapon.
If people want to sell their weapons back to the government - fine. If they want to sell them to the pawn shop on the corner, they can already do that.
Many of us have no desire to get rid of them unless trading up.

Name a gun (or a knife, an axe, a hammer or a motor vehicle) that can't be used to commit an assault.
I suppose that qualifies them all for the "assault" label.

Tens of millions of guns and gun owners don't seem to be creating any problems or breaking any laws.

Nobody needs a car that can go twice the speed limit - they should be illegal what with speed being such a factor in accidents and fatalities.
People shouldn't drink and drive either.
We could just outlaw vehicles.
Or we could just outlaw alcohol.
I think we should outlaw both just to be safe - doesn't matter that almost all people can do both safely and responsibly, the carnage on our streets is simply too great to not care enough to do something about it.

If you think gun-related deaths are an issue, you don't even want to know how many innocent people are getting massacred on the streets by other people who are either impaired or too stupid to drive safely, or who use vehicles as weapons.

Something needs to be done about all those Assault SUV's out there.
Driving a big heavy vehicle provides more safety for the occupants; but we've got to consider the greater good here.
And that's without even getting into the whole environment issue.

It's a no-brainer - motor vehicles have simply got to go because some people just can't handle them safely.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

...And the answer was to expel him and send him to another school. He had no parents to arrange help for him, and the people he was staying with supposedly gave him a key to the gun locker.

It is a catch 22 situation. Old enough to own them, but dumb enough to advertise. Senators and cops on the news saying that if any “abnormal activity” is seen in neighbors, friends, etc. REPORT, REPORT, REPORT! To me, that is kind of ridiculous too. Because how do you know if your legitimately reporting a concern, or filing a false claim? That Cruz guy was obvious, but what if someone suddenly decided they wanted to pick up hunting as a hobby, and unwittingly shitstocked on guns and ammo? The school shooting Pandora’s box has been opened, unfortunately. They are already on the news saying “This shooting is the most brutal...or more brutal than...” already setting the bar for the next one, it looks like. IMHO so much needs to be done, at the root, but a balance needs to be reached to protect rights too. Just because I eat a salad, doesn’t mean I’m anorexic. But if I eat a leaf of lettuce, say I’m full, and weigh 90 lbs, that should raise concern, right?

The AR-15 is not a "military" weapon - it's the civilian version of a military weapon.
If people want to sell their weapons back to the government - fine. If they want to sell them to the pawn shop on the corner, they can already do that.
Many of us have no desire to get rid of them unless trading up.

Name a gun (or a knife, an axe, a hammer or a motor vehicle) that can't be used to commit an assault.
I suppose that qualifies them all for the "assault" label.

Tens of millions of guns and gun owners don't seem to be creating any problems or breaking any laws.

Nobody needs a car that can go twice the speed limit - they should be illegal what with speed being such a factor in accidents and fatalities.
People shouldn't drink and drive either.
We could just outlaw vehicles.
Or we could just outlaw alcohol.
I think we should outlaw both just to be safe - doesn't matter that almost all people can do both safely and responsibly, the carnage on our streets is simply too great to not care enough to do something about it.

If you think gun-related deaths are an issue, you don't even want to know how many innocent people are getting massacred on the streets by other people who are either impaired or too stupid to drive safely, or who use vehicles as weapons.

Something needs to be done about all those Assault SUV's out there.
Driving a big heavy vehicle provides more safety for the occupants; but we've got to consider the greater good here.
And that's without even getting into the whole environment issue.

It's a no-brainer - motor vehicles have simply got to go because some people just can't handle them safely.

Guns vs. cars is a false equivalency. We couldn't outlaw automobiles without radically restructuring our way of life. Conversely, nobody NEEDS a gun in a well-ordered society, and there are a number of well-ordered societies which illustrate this point.

It's also wrong because the vast majority of people I talk to don't advocate getting rid of guns completely; they just think gun ownership should be "well-regulated," to quote everybody's favorite Amendment. The notion that the only two options are BANNING ALL GUNS and DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is just NRA propaganda. (Hey, you're not a member of Congress, are you?)

I'll also bet you however much you care to bet that the next time 10+ people are mowed down, an AR-15 will be involved. Oh, and regarding the "if guns are outlawed" argument slash bumper sticker, go to Australia and try to buy an assault rifle. You can totally get one on the black market, and it will only cost you thirty thousand dollars.

I have a sincere question. I'm not involved in gun culture, and I honestly don't know. What do law-abiding people do with AR-15s?

Different people would use them for different things ranging from target shooting to just shooting - "plinking"; it's called.

First though, an AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle, just like any other semi-auto rifle, hand gun or shotgun.
Just like any other semi-auto; it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Many semi-autos are well suited for hunting, the AR-15, not so much; although the round that it fires is a popular hunting round and "long-ish" distance target shooting round.

The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M-16; the primary weapon carried by US troops since the early to mid 60's or so.
Because they are designed to look a lot like the military version they frequently are referred to as "assault" rifles.
The M-16 generally has "selective" fire - you can shoot it as a semi-auto or switch it over to full auto; that's not an option with the civilian version unless you have a federal firearms license.

They're not inherently more lethal than any other gun, especially other semi-autos, but they can usually be equipped with a higher capacity magazine, which means more shots before reloading.

For me, it's more a matter of just enjoying shooting them along with various other types of firearms.
I haven't done much of it in recent years but I used to a lot. I liked to reload my own ammo too.

I did once use an "assault-style" rifle to back down a pack of 6 or 8 very aggressive wild dogs while hiking one day - I was quite relieved to have it, 15 round magazine and all.

But the real answer to your question; IMO is:
Law abiding people do whatever they want to with them for whatever legal activity they choose.
And a lot of people do keep them for defense\security reasons, as with many guns.

I know people who are avid gun collectors - they have dozens of them - and have rarely ever even fired one.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

Guns vs. cars is a false equivalency. We couldn't outlaw automobiles without radically restructuring our way of life. Conversely, nobody NEEDS a gun in a well-ordered society, and there are a number of well-ordered societies which illustrate this point.

It's also wrong because the vast majority of people I talk to don't advocate getting rid of guns completely; they just think gun ownership should be "well-regulated," to quote everybody's favorite Amendment. The notion that the only two options are BANNING ALL GUNS and DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is just NRA propaganda. (Hey, you're not a member of Congress, are you?)

I'll also bet you however much you care to bet that the next time 10+ people are mowed down, an AR-15 will be involved. Oh, and regarding the "if guns are outlawed" argument slash bumper sticker, go to Australia and try to buy an assault rifle. You can totally get one on the black market, and it will only cost you thirty thousand dollars.

I don't think it's a false equivalency.
If the concern is safety and preserving and protecting life, then cars should be part of the discussion too; considering the thousands who die on the roads every year.

34,000+ people died in car crashes in the US in 2016.
That's more than 100 people every single day.

That's equal to Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook and Vegas - combined - each and every day.

Many thousands more are injured and\or disabled.

Where's the outrage?
In your rear view mirror?

Besides, I'm not talking about banning all cars - just the big, heavy ones.
And the fast ones.
And not everybody needs a driver's license or a car anyway.
We'd still have public transport too, you know.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the lives lost in vehicle accidents just have to be chalked up as expendable because doing something about it would be a really big inconvenience for a whole lot of people?

Driving isn't a one of our rights after all - it's a privilege - nothing guaranteed about that.

Maybe this intense outrage at the loss of life, and the demand that "something be done" is moderated when that something involves an activity the concerned people happen to engage in.

"Do something" - but only if the effect on you is nil.

And I'm sure there are times in even the most well ordered society when people might need a gun, unless you know of one (or more) well ordered to the point where crime or the threat of it is non-existent.

Last edited by JimC; 02-16-2018 at 05:12 AM.
Reason: added stuff

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

you know what gets me?! every time there is a shooting, ppl are all like, "omg we never knew". the cops are like, "we had no idea...."see something...tell somebody" right?! well....THEY EFFIN KNEW THIS TIME! so wtf man!? you knew he was trouble, and STILL nothing was done.! wtfffff

Thank you for answering my question, Jim. Just a follow up - when "plinking," what are you shooting? Where do you do this? I'm just trying to understand the side of gun enthusiasts.

I guess I would describe plinking as "informal target shooting".
Typically, you're in an area that's safe for shooting and you may put up paper targets, you may shoot at a can somebody left on the ground, etc.
Unlike going to a range and firing at targets from set distances and measuring your accuracy, you're just shooting for the fun of it.
Most people do it with small caliber guns like a .22 rifle because the bullets are cheap.

Thanks for asking the questions.
Many people don't understand the legitimate uses for guns, some think that there are no legitimate uses. And many don't seem to realize or recognize that with all of the tens of millions of guns in the hands of many millions of Americans, criminal misuse is not that common; and it doesn't happen just because the guns exist, it happens because there are criminals intent upon committing crimes; and some of them use guns to do so.

If I believed for an instant that banning\outlawing AR-15's would put a stop to crimes like this I'd pretty much have to be in favor of it. How could you not be? Trouble is that they will still be available, just not lawfully, and they will still be acquired, just not by the lawful.

It's a high-emotion issue for many people regardless of what their thoughts and opinions happen to be.

I sure don't have the answer; but I wish that we could find one.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

I guess I would describe plinking as "informal target shooting".
Typically, you're in an area that's safe for shooting and you may put up paper targets, you may shoot at a can somebody left on the ground, etc.
Unlike going to a range and firing at targets from set distances and measuring your accuracy, you're just shooting for the fun of it.
Most people do it with small caliber guns like a .22 rifle because the bullets are cheap.

Thanks for asking the questions.
Many people don't understand the legitimate uses for guns, some think that there are no legitimate uses. And many don't seem to realize or recognize that with all of the tens of millions of guns in the hands of many millions of Americans, criminal misuse is not that common; and it doesn't happen just because the guns exist, it happens because there are criminals intent upon committing crimes; and some of them use guns to do so.

If I believed for an instant that banning\outlawing AR-15's would put a stop to crimes like this I'd pretty much have to be in favor of it. How could you not be? Trouble is that they will still be available, just not lawfully, and they will still be acquired, just not by the lawful.

It's a high-emotion issue for many people regardless of what their thoughts and opinions happen to be.

I sure don't have the answer; but I wish that we could find one.

Thanks for answering. I really appreciate it. Your point is well-taken about if AR-15s are banned, criminals would still get them. However, it seems with these mass shootings, we're not dealing with career criminal types. It's a different mindset. It's possible that they wouldn't purchase them if they had to find an illegal source. :It's possible. Since most of these mass murderers usually die at the scene, they really can't be studied. It's probably good that Cruz was caught alive. Maybe we can get some insight into his brain.

Besides, I'm not talking about banning all cars - just the big, heavy ones.

You're not? Oh, okay. Guess I just got confused when you said: "We could just outlaw vehicles. Or we could just outlaw alcohol. I think we should outlaw both just to be safe."

My bad. Need to brush up on my critical reading skills.

Even if it’s not a false equivalency (and it is), it’s definitely whataboutism. “How can you say this thing is wrong? There’s this other thing that’s even more wrong! So wrong, in fact, that the first thing isn’t even really wrong!”

But let me take what you said about cars seriously: I think it would be a GREAT idea to make efforts to make cars safer. I am not an expert on how to do this, but if there were regulations that could be implemented that would decrease fatalities, I would be all in favor of that, as I think any reasonable person would. (You come across like highway safety is some liberal hippie conspiracy.)

You seem to be making the point that people are having a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of gun control because these incidents are more “shocking” than “death on the highway,” and people’s emotions are being whipped up by the media attention. If so, I have two responses:

1) You’re absolutely right.

2) Who gives a fuck? There’s still 17 dead people (mostly kids) in Florida who would still be alive today if that fucker didn’t have access to a weapon that NO ONE IN AMERICA NEEDS. Australia has not had a mass shooting in 22 years. (And BTW, they didn’t ban all firearms. They are just heavily (and sensibly) regulated.)

It is VERY CLEAR that some people’s attitude toward this issue is that the occasional dead kid is just the cost of doing business with the NRA.

I’m sorry, but this analogy with “death on the highway” just seems very weak to me. If you wanted to be REALLY glib about it, you would have been better served with “Hey, why don’t we just let the government tell us what kind of foods we can eat? Bet we could really cut down on the deaths related to diabetes and heart disease. Where’s the outrage about that??” No offense, but miss me with that bullshit.

Thanks for answering. I really appreciate it. Your point is well-taken about if AR-15s are banned, criminals would still get them. However, it seems with these mass shootings, we're not dealing with career criminal types. It's a different mindset. It's possible that they wouldn't purchase them if they had to find an illegal source. :It's possible. Since most of these mass murderers usually die at the scene, they really can't be studied. It's probably good that Cruz was caught alive. Maybe we can get some insight into his brain.

That's completely possible.
Just IMO - if someone decides they're going to commit a crime - whether it's a bank robbery or a mass shooting or a home invasion - they'll gather whatever tools they think they'll need to do it from whatever sources are available. We can try to take the AR-15's out of the equation - that's the gun everybody keeps talking about - but that's only one model in a whole class of firearms. Believe it or not, there are other readily available guns (that nobody is even talking about restricting) that could be used with far more devastating effect in close quarters than the assault-type rifles. Some people might take that statement as proof that we need even more restrictive gun laws, but it's just true; however anyone wants to interpret it.

Maybe we can get some insight into this guy's mind and what set him off.
In my mind, people can hold crazy, baseless, senseless beliefs and opinions, but they don't really become crazy people until they start acting on those opinions as if they were rational beliefs.

I just don't know - to do something like that it seems like there has to be anger or hatred at work; and maybe a sense that your intended victims are somehow a threat to you, or somehow not really even human.

I can't comprehend it.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.

You're not? Oh, okay. Guess I just got confused when you said: "We could just outlaw vehicles. Or we could just outlaw alcohol. I think we should outlaw both just to be safe."

My bad. Need to brush up on my critical reading skills.

Even if it’s not a false equivalency (and it is), it’s definitely whataboutism. “How can you say this thing is wrong? There’s this other thing that’s even more wrong! So wrong, in fact, that the first thing isn’t even really wrong!”

But let me take what you said about cars seriously: I think it would be a GREAT idea to make efforts to make cars safer. I am not an expert on how to do this, but if there were regulations that could be implemented that would decrease fatalities, I would be all in favor of that, as I think any reasonable person would. (You come across like highway safety is some liberal hippie conspiracy.)

You seem to be making the point that people are having a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of gun control because these incidents are more “shocking” than “death on the highway,” and people’s emotions are being whipped up by the media attention. If so, I have two responses:

1) You’re absolutely right.

2) Who gives a fuck? There’s still 17 dead people (mostly kids) in Florida who would still be alive today if that fucker didn’t have access to a weapon that NO ONE IN AMERICA NEEDS. Australia has not had a mass shooting in 22 years. (And BTW, they didn’t ban all firearms. They are just heavily (and sensibly) regulated.)

It is VERY CLEAR that some people’s attitude toward this issue is that the occasional dead kid is just the cost of doing business with the NRA.

I’m sorry, but this analogy with “death on the highway” just seems very weak to me. If you wanted to be REALLY glib about it, you would have been better served with “Hey, why don’t we just let the government tell us what kind of foods we can eat? Bet we could really cut down on the deaths related to diabetes and heart disease. Where’s the outrage about that??” No offense, but miss me with that bullshit.

I anticipated a more well-reasoned response from you.

It's not "whataboutism" or false equivalency unless the overarching concern is less about preventing senseless, needless deaths and more about preventing those that result from gun violence without thought of or regard for controllable causes that produce a far greater death toll.

I'm not saying that one thing is more wrong than the other - or that one is more acceptable than the other.
I don't think I ever made the argument that one wasn't a problem because the other was a bigger problem.
I did question why some people would be so concerned about changing one while never even mentioning the other.

It's not like we have an ongoing national debate about vehicle and highway safety - but I think now that we should.

Truth be told - I first posed the whole motor vehicle scenario as sort of a "first-strike response" in anticipation of the usual anti-gun arguments that almost always follow crimes like this. Since then, I've really been thinking a lot about it and it is bothering me a lot that so many lives are lost that way, but I guess that's really a topic for another thread.

But moving on, America is not Australia, obviously.
What works and is good there may or may not work here and may or may not be something to be tried here.
There would be (IMO) valid constitutional arguments here that probably never came into play there.

I don't think anyone can say that nobody in America "needs" a weapon like that because we can't imagine or predict every scenario in which someone might lawfully need one.
Imagine a rancher needing to protect a flock or a herd from a pack of predators.

Besides, "need" isn't currently a part of the equation as the right to have them still exists and that leaves it simply up to "want" instead.
We all know that there are legal mechanisms in place for changing that, perhaps the advocates of such change should pursue them more seriously and try to bring about that discussion.

No doubt the NRA is a big business and they have a lot of political clout.
As are the ACLU, the NAACP, various unions and other organizations that promote their specific agendas; in lawful ways.
None of them are criminal enterprises even if some people think that their agendas are "wrong".

Nobody in their right mind wants to see crimes like this (or of any other kind); obviously, we disagree on how to effectively prevent them.

A faulty hypothesis forming:A German scientist using Iranian physics and French mathematics.